Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Lambadomy
Any ideas you have I am open to, so please speak up. I am not a mathematician so I fully acknowledge that this system may not be perfect.

@MvBrandt
What do you suggest? I certainly don't want to lose any steam and if you see a way to streamline things, I am all ears.

@Yak
Thanks again for the suggestion, that was a smart play.

And you hit the nail on the head. The intention was to encourage players to go to more events. For one, the more players the more the event counts for and for two, it means bigger, better tournaments for everyone to enjoy.

How about a few relationship checks?

1) Limit points to finishing in the top half of a tournament, irrespective of size.

2) Make sure your points scale as you want them to. For example, if a 1st place finish at a 40-man, 3-round event should be twice as much as at a 20-man, 3-round event, and half as much as at a 80-man event, then adjust your formula accordingly.

3) You may also want to cap the number of players used in your formula, or Adpeticon is going to tilt the scale so heavily as to make 16--man events effectively irrelevant.

Adpeticon is not in the southwest.

Only events in the southwest region will count, and the only big one is Da Grand WAAGH!

I didn't want the big events to totally outpace the smaller as otherwise there would be no point in going to RTTs for the purposes of this cup. That is why there are so many padding points in the amount of games played. That was meant to curtail attendance figures somewhat. It also encourages people to go to multi-day events, well I hope it does anyway.

If we eliminate the bottom half from scoring, that may help to avoid situations where someone who gets 20th in a 50 man tournament gets more points than a person who gets 4th in a 16 man event. However, you can make the argument that getting 20th place means you outplayed 19 other individuals, whereas getting 4th out of 16 means you only out played 13.

Plus, by including more people it makes the event more engaging to a wider audience. People like to see where they stand in the pecking order, even if not in the hunt for the top spots. It creates more bookkeeping for me, but I don't mind that.

The main thing I was concerned about with this system is if a region has lots of big events, like Great Escape Games in Sac. They tell me they routinely draw huge crowds for their RTTs. The one I went to was not that big, but if they do generate 40-60 players on a regular basis, that will really skew figures. So there may need to be a cap set in place, but then that seems to be unfair to the guys playing against larger amounts of opponents.

Any ideas on how to curtail that type of occurrence is totally welcome.

Thanks for the input, Janthkin.

err nevermind

I'm not sure which points level you went to up here Reecius but for last year's 1250 point RTT we had something in the neighborhood of 78 people and by the time we got to 2500 in November it had petered down to 40 and I wouldn't be surprised if it jumped up to 60ish again for this coming RTT in 2 weeks though who knows it may go the opposite direction lol. It's been having an overall positive response (hurray cheap to enter lol) but I could really see how it would skew the results if we end up with the same attendance as last year.

Hmmm. It would be cool if this happened. I assume Southwest would include Arizona?

@MrDrumMachine
Yeah Great Escape game sis a bit of an x-factor! We could end up with like 50% of the invites gong to Sac guys just due to the size of events, which is not really indicative of the region covered (California, Arizona, Nevada) as a whole. I may have to come up with a cap of some sort to make sure it isn't totally skewed, but I hate to do that arbitrarily just to reign in a successful series of events.

It's an escalation tournament, right? Maybe we will just use the final results for the entire event as a qualifier. That way it will just be the largest day's turnout and the overall winners as determinants.

As for points level? Doesn't matter really, but perhaps we will use 1500 as a cut off, up to 2500.

@bryan40Kman2000
Yeah, CA, AZ, NV

Not sure what the latest word on this is but the team over at CnC, Game Empire Pasadena, and I have decided to run a year long ranked ladder with an invitational in December. We started it as a "surprise" for some of our regulars with the first tournament of the year at Game Empire. If you want specifics check it out on Capture and Control. Other tournaments/stores can participate. \The Warmaster Cup: Announcing the Inaugural Season!

That looks like a great event!

We are a green light on this. Andrew over at Rankings HQ is setting aside a section of his website to track our rankings for the Southwest Master's Cup. He is working on it now and should have it done shortly.

I will begin tracking tournament data now, and store it to upload into the system.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Not sure what the latest word on this is but the team over at CnC, Game Empire Pasadena, and I have decided to run a year long ranked ladder with an invitational in December. We started it as a "surprise" for some of our regulars with the first tournament of the year at Game Empire. If you want specifics check it out on Capture and Control. Other tournaments/stores can participate. \The Warmaster Cup: Announcing the Inaugural Season!

I posted a comment on your blog page...I'm all for a master's cup, but you really need to have 4 rounds if you're going to invite 16 people otherwise there's no way you can crown a 'true' champion and you'll be stuck with an unsatisfying 'BCS' style finale.

Also, are you reporting your tournie results to rankings HQ? I think its fine to have your own ranking system going on, but I think more and more people are interested in seeing their results tabulated in a central system that keeps track of results, so if you're not already you should really consider submitting your results to rankings HQ IMHO.

yakface wrote:

I posted a comment on your blog page...I'm all for a master's cup, but you really need to have 4 rounds if you're going to invite 16 people otherwise there's no way you can crown a 'true' champion and you'll be stuck with an unsatisfying 'BCS' style finale.

Also, are you reporting your tournie results to rankings HQ? I think its fine to have your own ranking system going on, but I think more and more people are interested in seeing their results tabulated in a central system that keeps track of results, so if you're not already you should really consider submitting your results to rankings HQ IMHO.

The format for the final is not set in stone yet. If I think it can be managed, we might try to do a two-day, five game event.

-Dis.

Just an update on the monster of an RTT we had over the weekend up in Sacramento. It did happen to be the biggest CoC ever. . . again lol. It will probably skew the rankings pretty badly as the year goes on. This weekend we had 86 players and I think there were another 4-6 that got turned away for lack of space. I'd expect there to be at least 50+ players for the rest of the year as well as I think most of everybody had a lot of fun and the missions were good and even though some tables had quite a bit more terrain than others, to cover that many tables it's tough for it to be ALL top quality.

I'm not sure if any of it gets submitted to rankings HQ or not but it's all in a spreadsheet so it should be easy enough for someone to do, but how exactly you would keep it from making the numbers weird all year I don't know. I'm sure you'll figure something out that's fair though . Using the year overall is one way for sure, though I think to determine that they take the best 4 tournaments any given person was in and add those scores to determine who was best overall for the year. I dunno!

We're taking the top 3 results, but yeah, numbers that big are way out of proportion with the rest of the region! That is great for you guys, but definitely throws us out of proportion a bit.

How many points was it? I am thinking we will limit it to 1500-2500.

Also, the owner of GEG said he was gong to call me last weekend about us hosting our GT there but he never got back to me. I sent him a follow up email but I have heard nothing back.

As for the SWMC, we are just waiting on RankingsHQ to finalize the portion of the site for us. I wrote him a follow up email today to get a status update and he is usually really responsive so I anticipate hearing back from him, soon.

You can send me the spreadsheet, I'll PM you my personal email.

Thanks for the update!

OK, so I talked to Andrew over at RankingsHQ and he said he thinks our section of the website should be done by next week!

That means if it gets finished, we will be rocking and rolling. Once we have the site up and make sure it works, then I will start hyping this up, getting sponsors, etc.

This looks like it's going to happen, so thanks again to everyone for helping out!

One simple suggestion I would make is just to cap the points for event size based on the number of rounds.

For example, a 3 round tournament in a w/l format only really finds a true winner with 8 players. 4 rounds can find a true winner in 16, and 5 rounds for 32 players. Obviously with 20/13/10/7/0 scoring or ties or however you do it this doesn't hold, but it's still a decent rule of thumb.

It would probably be fair to say that a 3 round tournament caps at 16 or 24 or even 32 people, and that anything more than that the points are the same. If you had say a 48 person tournament with 3 rounds, first and second would get first place points, second and third second place...etc. or if you had capped it at 16 you'd give first, second and third max points, etc.

For more rounds, you expand the maximum number of players.

Anyway, that's my two cents, and a more simple way of saying what I wanted to say before. There's no reason to inordinately reward people for finishing 8th in a three round tournament with 80 people.

I hear what you are saying and I think a cap of some kind would be a good idea so as not to completely sway the data in favor of localized events where guys can repeatedly play in large tournaments, such as Great Escape Games. We could end up with a situation where those guys wrack up boatloads of points and then fill a lot of the invites.

On the other hand, I want to create incentive for people to go to and grow tournaments. If it means a birth in the Masters, just maybe people will go out and encourage more gamers to come out.

SO maybe we will set a hard limit as that doesn't allow for localized advantages.

That is a good idea.

Yeah, that is part of why I suggested the cap be much higher than what the number of rounds actually determines a reasonable victor for. I mean, it's awesome that they have 86 player 3 round tournaments, and people should get points for it, but really you have what a 10 way tie for first? At some point there needs to be a cutoff.

You can of course still give bonus points for being considered 1st/2nd/3rd for these events too.

Yeah, the bonus points for 1st/2nd/3rd will stay to stratify the field.

I understand your point and was considering that, too. Someone who gets 54th place in an 80 man tournament shouldn't get as many or more points as someone who gets 1st in a 15 man tournament! Haha. It is just difficult to come up with a system that mitigates this and is still fair.

Guess I'd better start collecting some skullz!....he he he he he he